As you can see on the first battle my hit rate was ludicrous (especially the first kill against his artillery).
On the second battle, not only my hit rate, but even my cards are out of control (2 Armor Assault, 2 infantry Assault and one Artillery Bombard... Really?).

My silly question is: what the percentage for a victory for you between dice, cards and strategy?

In my opinion 50% dice, 30% cards and 20% strategy.

This doesn't mean that you have only to be lucky to be a good player but...

And I will have to explain that. For one scenario and one game luck makes a difference. But if you play al lot of games, skill is more important than luck. Bad luck and good luck on both cards and dice will even out if you have played more than 1000 games. Determining the right strategy and anticipating on the possibilities of your opponent is more important than the outcome of a sequence of dice rolls or hands you have been dealt.

There are players that beat the odds continuously. That is what I call skill. If you take a look at the post of Stevens you will see that he has almost a 75% victory score. He has played 2012 games with 1500 victories.

You can control your strategy. A bad strategy will usually get you defeated -- often, even on the favored side of a scenario.

You can't control what cards you get (though you can control how you play them).

And you can't control what you roll with the dice (though you can control whether you'll roll relatively many or few, and what targets you'll roll them against, and to some extent, how many dice your opponent will be able to roll against you).

You can't control what cards you get (though you can control how you play them).

if you have enough patience, you can control what cards you get (in the end). There are some players out there who take the time to save up for a good hand.

I personally do not have the patience for it, most of the time, but "working the cards" a little is part of the game I feel.

Usually one starts with a few decent cards and are fortunate enough to draw a few along the way.

But if you start with garbage and draw garbage, well...

I played a recent game where most of my forces started in the center. I only played two center cards all game long for a total of 3 orders. All my other cards were either Recons or Probes on my flanks. I played a Recon and drew another Recon and Dig In

Meanwhile my opponent played a series of card that ordered more units than I did and picked apart my mostly stationary forces. I guess we have all been there.

At any rate, yes skill certainly counts for something. As to cards and dice, I always said I will take good cards and good dice as opposed to great cards and poor dice.

I witnessed one game where a player played back to back Armor Assault and close assaulted with 4 tanks in both turns. He did not get one kill-in fact he caused very little damage with a ton of dice. His opponent then took him apart in a few turns.

A good strategy is fundamental, but it could be hampered by the cards on your hand (as tank commander stated: "I played a recent game where most of my forces started in the center. I only played two center cards all game long for a total of 3 orders. All my other cards were either Recons or Probes on my flanks. I played a Recon and drew another Recon and Dig In").

After this, you could have very good cards that boost your strategy, but they could be hampered by poor dice...

Sure, with a lot of battles bad luck and good luck will even out, but every single battle is a battle on his own, that will be put on the cauldron of the thousand battles AFTER played it.

Luck is one of the most important things to reckon for a battle (IMHO).

Rememeber the commemorative stone put up by the 7th Bersaglieri Regiment on the road from Alexandria to El Alamein at the high-water mark for the Italian advance.
The inscription reads: Mancò la fortuna, non il valore (A failure of fortune, not of valour).

And as an Italian, I want to remember one of the most famous battle fought with valour by the Italians, on the wrong side unfortunately.

I used ti say 70% luck and 30% skill, but with luck being even skill is more important.

But Hellcat is correct. Luck alone never gets you to the top.

So I agree with his assessment:

50% Tactics

30% Cards

20% Dice

Cards are more important than dice for the whole game is about maximizing dice against your opponent and minimizing his. Cards are more helpful than lucky dice since it isn't about the individual roll but the total dice rolled.

JFKoski is right all those numbers are fine on a 50/50 scenario but some scenarios you need MORE luck than usual.

If you are talking about winning from one particular side in a single scenario, you are talking about an entirely different subject than I was addressing. I reserve my percentage remarks to match play where each side plays the scenario once from each side and the total number of medals and figures are taken into account.

I think if you start talking about winning First Assault Wave as Allies or Arnhem Bridge as Axis, you will have to admit that luck was a larger factor and that the skill variant between the opponents may also have been disproportional for the "underdog" to eke out the victory. I would say this situation was true in the cases where I saw victories either for myself or for my opponent in these particular scenarios.

This is why if I am playing a single scenario, I would like to opt for a more balanced odds in the scenario itself. Fortunately, there are quite a few to choose from:

Playing solo against the overly aggressive AI shows that a poor strategy (especially excessive aggression) generally leads to defeat.

The AI can generally be defeated despite the odds (in most scenarios) even if the AI has better cards and dice.

So strategy is important.

Overwhelming cards and dice advantage can beat any strategy. Even the AI with its aggression will win if its opponent can't get enough hits from the combination of dice and cards.

So dice and cards are important too.

What hasn't been discussed is experience.
An experienced player knows not to panic, that the dice and cards can (and do) change. Experience helps form one's strategy. Wisdom built upon lessons learnt in previous battles is very important.

But at the end of the day (and sometimes I forget this (to my regret) and get too serious) this is a game and we should enjoy the game and the camaraderie of the game.

Interestingly enough I think there are many of the less "even" maps that give you much more control than some of the 50-50 maps.
Warsaw is a personal pet-peeve of mine - it's completely decided by the dice and cards because both sides are evenly matched and there's only 1 possible STRATEGY for both sides: Shoot-shoot-shoot.
I feel much more in control when playing maps like Wake or Meatgrinder - even though the odds are supposedly worse (30/70).

IMO there are two elements that are important for interesting (and fair) maps: Both sides need to maneuver to win, and no single starting card can completely ruin the match (such as Barrage on Sword Beach - which effectively gives the allies a 41% chance to win from the get go if they can play that first).

Warsaw is a personal pet-peeve of mine - it's completely decided by the dice and cards because both sides are evenly matched and there's only 1 possible STRATEGY for both sides: Shoot-shoot-shoot.

I agree completely. And the strangest thing is that Battle of Warsaw is rated 3 stars!
Last time I played it (when playing Allies) my opponent wrote: "I don't like the way you play" (to which I replied something like "Yes, I understand: that's how bad this scenario is.")

Nygaard

IMO there are two elements that are important for interesting (and fair) maps: Both sides need to maneuver to win,(...)

Very true. On the matter, see Matanikau River, which can either be played for fun (with maneuver) or for death-boredom (relying on artilleries): http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/9929976#9929976
In my opinion, this is a scenario handicap, not something to charge a player of, just because he choses what (for him) seems to be the best strategy to win the game.

Nygaard

(...) and no single starting card can completely ruin the match (such as Barrage on Sword Beach - which effectively gives the allies a 41% chance to win from the get go if they can play that first).

Or killer starting card combinations, turning games into a 5 minutes slaughter at poor scenarios like 1st Armored to the Rescue or Sidi Rezegh Airfield!

As I see from the comments. Most seem to enjoy a game that involves manuever and good card play versus the luck of the draw. I too am in agreement that games that provide these elements are the most enjoyable and entertaining.